Scottish Court of Session Decisions

At a meeting of the Income-Tax and Inhabited-House-Duty Commissioners for the county of Edinburgh, held at Edinburgh on 9th December 1885, William Crooke, photographer, appealed against an assessment made upon him for the year 1885–86 of £9, 7s. 6d., being inhabited-house-duty at the rate of 9d. per pound on £250, the cumulo annual rent of a dwelling-house and photographic studio occupied by him at No. 103 Princes Street, Edinburgh. The premises were part of a building consisting of a ground or basement floor and three flats above, all the property of the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. The ground or basement floor, No. 103 Princes Street, which had a separate entrance from the street, was let to Messrs Edwin Pass &Son, perfumers, and was occupied by them solely as a shop, and was not assessed for inhabited-house-duty.

The three upper flats, which entered from the street by a separate door and passage, were let to and occupied by Crooke; the first flat was used as a photographic studio, and the second and third flats as a dwelling-house. These subjects were separately described in, but were let under one lease, dated 7th May 1884, at the cumulo rent specified therein, viz., £250. It was admitted that the annual value of the dwelling-house was £80, being the rent paid by the previous tenant, who occupied the house only. The whole of the premises occupied by Crooke were shut in by a street door at the foot of the stair, which remained open during business hours, but was shut at night and fastened by means of a latch. The only communication between the studio and the dwelling-house was by the stair which led from the street, and to which Crooke had the sole access. The studio (occupying the whole of the first flat) had originally two doors to the stair, the one leading to a room at the back and the other to one at the front. One of these, however, was latterly always closed by a bolt on the inside. The dwelling-house consisted of two flats, which were connected with one another by an internal stair, but there was only one door to the outer stair.

Crooke contended that he was entitled to exemption in respect of the studio, as it and the dwelling-house were separate subjects, and were separately specified in his lease, and further that the access from the street by the stair referred to did not constitute internal communication. He further contended that the dwelling-house and studio formed part of a house of which the shop tenanted by Edwin Pass &Son also formed a part, and that being let in different storeys and inhabited by two or more persons or families, it thus fell to be assessed under the 6th rule of Schedule B, 48 Geo. III. cap. 55, and came under the exemption granted by 41 Vict. cap. 15, section 13, sub-section 1.

The Surveyor of Taxes, James S. Smiles, maintained that the exemption referred to did not apply. The premises occupied by the appellant formed one tenement, with an independent entrance, to which he as occupier had the sole right. The dwelling-house and studio were “attached,” and being all enclosed by the entrance door from the street, and not being occupied solely for the purposes of any trade or business, formed an assessable dwelling-house in the sense of the Inhabited-House-Duty Acts.

The Commissioners were of opinion that the premises were so structurally divided as to form two separate subjects, and that the charge should be restricted to the duty on £80, the annual value of the portion occupied as a dwelling-house.

The Surveyor took a Case, from which the foregoing narrative is taken.

The Surveyor argued that the case was distinguishable from Corke v. Brims, July 7, 1883, 10 R. 1128; and Nisbet v. M'Innes, Mackenzie, & Lochead, July 15, 1884, 11 R. 1095, because the whole subjects were let to one person.

The respondent's counsel was not called upon.